Example of Evaluation format
Recent searches

Example of Evaluation format Example of Evaluation format Example of Evaluation format Example of Evaluation format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
Look Inside
Example of Evaluation format Example of Evaluation format Example of Evaluation format Example of Evaluation format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
open access Open Access

Evaluation — Template for authors

Publisher: SAGE
Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Sociology and Political Science #210 of 1269 down down by 44 ranks
Development #60 of 257 down down by 28 ranks
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
High
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 107 Published Papers | 326 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 11/06/2020
Related journals
Insights
General info
Top papers
Popular templates
Get started guide
Why choose from SciSpace
FAQ

Related Journals

open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Springer

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 3.8
SJR: 0.459
SNIP: 1.35
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Springer

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 6.3
SJR: 1.447
SNIP: 1.944
open access Open Access

Springer

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 2.2
SJR: 0.972
SNIP: 1.173
open access Open Access

Brill

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 0.9
SJR: 0.279
SNIP: 0.351

Journal Performance & Insights

CiteRatio

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

A measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.

Measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.

Measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.

3.0

12% from 2019

CiteRatio for Evaluation from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 3.0
2019 3.4
2018 3.3
2017 3.0
2016 3.0
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

0.998

4% from 2019

SJR for Evaluation from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.998
2019 1.041
2018 0.894
2017 0.83
2016 0.814
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

1.598

11% from 2019

SNIP for Evaluation from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 1.598
2019 1.435
2018 1.446
2017 1.476
2016 1.346
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • CiteRatio of this journal has decreased by 12% in last years.
  • This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • SJR of this journal has decreased by 4% in last years.
  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • SNIP of this journal has increased by 11% in last years.
  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.

Evaluation

Guideline source: View

All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice

SAGE

Evaluation

Approved by publishing and review experts on SciSpace, this template is built as per for Evaluation formatting guidelines as mentioned in SAGE author instructions. The current version was created on 11 Jun 2020 and has been used by 487 authors to write and format their manuscripts to this journal.

Sociology and Political Science

Development

Social Sciences

i
Last updated on
11 Jun 2020
i
ISSN
1356-3890
i
Impact Factor
Medium - 0.92
i
Open Access
No
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
Green faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Bibliography Name
SageV
i
Citation Type
Numbered (Superscripted)
25
i
Bibliography Example
Blonder GE, Tinkham M and Klapwijk TM. Transition from metallic to tunneling regimes in superconducting microconstrictions: Excess current, charge imbalance, and supercurrent conversion. Phys. Rev. B 1982; 25(7): 4515–4532. URL 10.1103/PhysRevB.25.4515.

Top papers written in this journal

Journal Article DOI: 10.1177/1356389013497081
Validity and generalization in future case study evaluations
10 Jul 2013 - Evaluation

Abstract:

Validity and generalization continue to be challenging aspects in designing and conducting case study evaluations, especially when the number of cases being studied is highly limited (even limited to a single case). To address the challenge, this article highlights current knowledge regarding the use of: (1) rival explanation... Validity and generalization continue to be challenging aspects in designing and conducting case study evaluations, especially when the number of cases being studied is highly limited (even limited to a single case). To address the challenge, this article highlights current knowledge regarding the use of: (1) rival explanations, triangulation, and logic models in strengthening validity, and (2) analytic generalization and the role of theory in seeking to generalize from case studies. To ground the discussion, the article cites specific practices and examples from the existing literature as well as from the six preceding articles assembled in this special issue. Throughout, the article emphasizes that current knowledge may still be regarded as being at its early stage of development, still leaving room for more learning. The article concludes by pointing to three topics worthy of future methodological inquiry, including: (1) examining the connection between the way that initial evaluation questions are pose... read more read less
1,091 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1177/1356389007084674
Using Programme Theory to Evaluate Complicated and Complex Aspects of Interventions
Patricia Rogers1
01 Jan 2008 - Evaluation

Abstract:

This article proposes ways to use programme theory for evaluating aspects of programmes that are complicated or complex. It argues that there are useful distinctions to be drawn between aspects that are complicated and those that are complex, and provides examples of programme theory evaluations that have usefully represented... This article proposes ways to use programme theory for evaluating aspects of programmes that are complicated or complex. It argues that there are useful distinctions to be drawn between aspects that are complicated and those that are complex, and provides examples of programme theory evaluations that have usefully represented and address both of these. While complexity has been defined in varied ways in previous discussions of evaluation theory and practice, this article draws on Glouberman and Zimmerman's conceptualization of the differences between what is complicated (multiple components) and what is complex (emergent). Complicated programme theory may be used to represent interventions with multiple components, multiple agencies, multiple simultaneous causal strands and/or multiple alternative causal strands. Complex programme theory may be used to represent recursive causality (with reinforcing loops), disproportionate relationships (where at critical levels, a small change can make a big difference ... read more read less

Topics:

Conceptualization (50%)50% related to the paper, Theory of change (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
755 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1177/135638902401462448
Evidence-based Policy: The Promise of `Realist Synthesis'
Ray Pawson1
01 Jul 2002 - Evaluation

Abstract:

Evaluation research is tortured by time constraints. The policy cycle revolves more quickly than the research cycle, with the result that `real time' evaluations often have little influence on poli... Evaluation research is tortured by time constraints. The policy cycle revolves more quickly than the research cycle, with the result that `real time' evaluations often have little influence on poli... read more read less

Topics:

Evidence-based policy (62%)62% related to the paper, Policy analysis (58%)58% related to the paper
676 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1177/135638909500100202
Justification by Works or by Faith?: Evaluating the New Public Management
Christopher Pollitt1
01 Jul 1995 - Evaluation

Abstract:

The article first defines a set of policy measures that constitute the 'New Public Management' (NPM). Evidence is cited to support the contention that the NPM has been widely adopted, with local va... The article first defines a set of policy measures that constitute the 'New Public Management' (NPM). Evidence is cited to support the contention that the NPM has been widely adopted, with local va... read more read less

Topics:

New public management (68%)68% related to the paper
470 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.1177/1356389003009002002
From Knowing to Doing: A Framework for Understanding the Evidence-into-Practice Agenda
Sandra Nutley1, Isabel Walter1, Huw Davies1
01 Apr 2003 - Evaluation

Abstract:

The past decade has witnessed widespread interest in the development of policy and practice that is better informed by evidence. Enthusiasm has, however, been tempered by recognition of the difficulties of devising effective strategies to ensure that evidence is integrated into policy and utilized in practice. There is alread... The past decade has witnessed widespread interest in the development of policy and practice that is better informed by evidence. Enthusiasm has, however, been tempered by recognition of the difficulties of devising effective strategies to ensure that evidence is integrated into policy and utilized in practice. There is already a rich but diverse and widely dispersed literature that can be drawn upon to inform such strategies. This article offers a guide to this literature by focusing on six main interrelated concerns: (1) the types of knowledge relevant to understanding research utilization/evidence-based practice (RU/EBP) implementation; (2) the ways in which research knowledge is utilized; (3) models of the process of utilization; (4) the conceptual frameworks that enable us to understand the process of RU/EBP implementation; (5) the main ways of intervening to increase evidence uptake and the effectiveness of these; (6) different ways of conceptualizing what RU/EBP means in practice. read more read less

Topics:

Evidence-based policy (58%)58% related to the paper, Evidence-based practice (54%)54% related to the paper, Conceptual framework (50%)50% related to the paper
View PDF
438 Citations
Author Pic

SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.

- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering

Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds
1
Choose a template
Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates
2
Import a MS-Word file or start fresh
It takes only few seconds to import
3
View and edit your final output
SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines
4
Submit directly or Download
Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX

(Before submission check for plagiarism via Turnitin)

clock Less than 3 minutes

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

''

With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for Evaluation.

It automatically formats your research paper to SAGE formatting guidelines and citation style.

You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.

Time comparison

Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.

Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles, a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?

Turnitin Stats
Publisher Logos

Freedom from formatting guidelines

One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates

With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.

publisher-logos

Easy support from all your favorite tools

Evaluation format uses SageV citation style.

Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.

SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can I write Evaluation in LaTeX?

Absolutely not! Our tool has been designed to help you focus on writing. You can write your entire paper as per the Evaluation guidelines and auto format it.

2. Do you follow the Evaluation guidelines?

Yes, the template is compliant with the Evaluation guidelines. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. If there are any changes to the journal's guidelines, we'll change our algorithm accordingly.

3. Can I cite my article in multiple styles in Evaluation?

Of course! We support all the top citation styles, such as APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, and Chicago style. For example, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, our system will automatically update your article as per the Evaluation citation style.

4. Can I use the Evaluation templates for free?

Sign up for our free trial, and you'll be able to use all our features for seven days. You'll see how helpful they are and how inexpensive they are compared to other options, Especially for Evaluation.

5. Can I use a manuscript in Evaluation that I have written in MS Word?

Yes. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word document, and click on auto-format. Once you're done, you'll have a publish-ready paper Evaluation that you can download at the end.

6. How long does it usually take you to format my papers in Evaluation?

It only takes a matter of seconds to edit your manuscript. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves you from writing and formatting it in Evaluation.

7. Where can I find the template for the Evaluation?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per Evaluation's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

8. Can I reformat my paper to fit the Evaluation's guidelines?

Of course! You can do this using our intuitive editor. It's very easy. If you need help, our support team is always ready to assist you.

9. Evaluation an online tool or is there a desktop version?

SciSpace's Evaluation is currently available as an online tool. We're developing a desktop version, too. You can request (or upvote) any features that you think would be helpful for you and other researchers in the "feature request" section of your account once you've signed up with us.

10. I cannot find my template in your gallery. Can you create it for me like Evaluation?

Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it setup within a few days. You can find the request box in Journal Gallery on the right side bar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for like Evaluation?”

11. What is the output that I would get after using Evaluation?

After writing your paper autoformatting in Evaluation, you can download it in multiple formats, viz., PDF, Docx, and LaTeX.

12. Is Evaluation's impact factor high enough that I should try publishing my article there?

To be honest, the answer is no. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of these factors include review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, and Eigenfactor. You need to assess all these factors before you make your final call.

13. What is Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy for Evaluation?

SHERPA/RoMEO Database

We extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help researchers understand the access level of this journal in accordance with the Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy for Evaluation. The table below indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo's archiving policy.

RoMEO Colour Archiving policy
Green Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White Archiving not formally supported
FYI:
  1. Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
  2. Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

14. What are the most common citation types In Evaluation?

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage for Evaluation are:.

S. No. Citation Style Type
1. Author Year
2. Numbered
3. Numbered (Superscripted)
4. Author Year (Cited Pages)
5. Footnote

15. How do I submit my article to the Evaluation?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per Evaluation's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

16. Can I download Evaluation in Endnote format?

Yes, SciSpace provides this functionality. After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or Bib file to SciSpace. Then SciSpace would allow you to download your references in Evaluation Endnote style according to Elsevier guidelines.

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.

Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.

Available only on desktops 🖥

No word template required

Typset automatically formats your research paper to Evaluation formatting guidelines and citation style.

Verifed journal formats

One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.

Trusted by academicians

I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.

Andreas Frutiger
Researcher & Ex MS Word user
Use this template